Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 308 (JHR)

Sant Lal Roy And Etc. v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-04-21

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Since both the revision applications arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner Sant Lal Roy in Cr. Rev. No. 1024 of 2003 and the petitioner Shashank Shekhar Singh in Cr. Rev. No. 1094 of 2003 have challenged the order dated 20-9-2003, passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rejected the petition filed by them under Section 239 read with Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge of the petitioners from the said case. 3. The facts in short are that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2001 was registered on 5-7-2001 against the Shashank Shekhar Singh, who was Block Development Officer, Kuru and Sant Lal Roy, who was the Block Statistical Officer for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecution arises out of a petition filed by informant Ajoy Kumar Sahu to the I.G. Vigilance with respect to the allegation against these two accused persons. In the petition it was alleged that he was an unemployed educated youth. He took contract work of repair of a basic school at village Ziling under Kuru block in the district of Lohardaga. He, completed some portion of repair work but he had to receive some payment by way of third instalment from the authority for the work, so he contacted Shashank Shekhar Singh, B.D.O. of Kuru block and Sant Lal Rai who happened to be the Block Statistical Officer in the block. Both the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the informant. The FIR further goes to show that he was not inclined to give the bribe to the accused persons but on the repeated requests for payment of 10% of the scheme, the accused persons demanded bribe. In case of non-payment of bribe the informant suspected difficulties, hence he gave written information to I.G. Vigilance and on receipt of it, the I.G. Vigilance directed the Inspector L.N. Singh to verify the matter. Shri L. N. Singh Inspector, Vigilance on 5-7-01 along with this informant went to the quarter of accused Shashank Shekhar Singh who was sitting on the varandah of his residence. Shri L. N. Singh Inspector, Vigilance on 5-7-01 along with this informant went to the quarter of accused Shashank Shekhar Singh who was sitting on the varandah of his residence. The informant in presence of L. N. Singh paid respect to the B.D.O. and in his presence, the B.D.O. Shashank Shekhar Singh demanded 10% commission from the informant. The informant was to give Rs. 4000/- out of which he only paid Rs. 2000/-. So the B.D.O. demanded the rest amount for which the informant promised to make payment by the evening. Then this Inquiring Officer L. N. Singh, Inspector (Vigilance) went to the official residence of accused Sant Lal Rai along with informant. Fortunately, this accused was also sitting in the varandah and in his presence the accused demanded sum of Rs. 1000/- from the informant. The informant agreed to pay. Accordingly, he submitted report to I.G. Vigilance. Accordingly, a trap was organized after preparing G.C. notes memorandum on which the members of trap party put their signatures on it. Demonstration was shown for the process and thereafter trap party left for residence of accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons were trapped and a sum of Rs. 2000/- was recovered from the possession of accused Shashank Shekhar Singh. Seizure list was prepared G.C. notes were recovered. The procedure of seizure was followed and thereafter vigilance started investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet along with sanction order. 4. Subsequently the cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi and the accused persons were served with Police Papers. Thereafter a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons before the trial Court purported to be under Section 239, Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the case on 4-7-2003 and thereafter a Supplementary Discharge Petition on their behalf was also filed, said to be under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the same very prayer for their discharge. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer for discharge of the accused petitioners and hence this application. 5. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), as it appears from the detailed impugned order that he considered the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, the submissions made on their behalf and the points raised by them. 5. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), as it appears from the detailed impugned order that he considered the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, the submissions made on their behalf and the points raised by them. The point, which was raised before the Court below as well as in the present Revision application are more or less similar. It has been submitted that there was no evidence or material on the record for framing of charge against the petitioners. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court has acted mechanically and there is total non-application of mind on the points raised on behalf of the accused persons. 6. As it appears from the impugned order, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) has discussed in detail the materials collected during investigation and then has come to the finding that the trap was organized by adopting all procedures and thereafter the accused persons were caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. The G.C. notes were recovered. The Special Judge (Vigilance) held that the difference in number of the G.C. notes was the subject-matter of trial for which defence would get opportunity to contradict the evidence of prosecution at an appropriate stage/The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) after discussing the different decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners has rightly held that at the stage of framing of charge, the evidence on record has to be weighed or a very limited purpose i.e. for the purpose of findings whether the materials collected during investigation are sufficient to frame charge against the accused. 7. From a close scrutiny of the impugned order, I find that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was no material on record for framing of charge and that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity or non-application of mind is not correct at all. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) has fully discussed the relevant materials on the record and has considered all the points raised on behalf of the petitioners and then has come to the findings that there was sufficient material for framing of charge. The materials against the petitioners have also been noticed by me in the earlier paragraphs of this order and I find that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rightly held that there was sufficient material to frame charge against the accused persons. 8. I see no illegality in the impugned order. The materials against the petitioners have also been noticed by me in the earlier paragraphs of this order and I find that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) rightly held that there was sufficient material to frame charge against the accused persons. 8. I see no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, having found no merit, these two revision applications are dismissed.